Weaponizing Coronavirus

President Trump has said that Dumocrats actually WANT the Coronavirus to come here and kill a few million people so they can blame it on him. That’s already happened. That horse has already escaped, and is gone. Dumocrats are already blaming Trump for the virus, and will continue to do so, even if he manages to eliminate it altogether. But one Dumocrat has gone so far as to threaten President Trump if he says it in his hearing. That’s what Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) told an interviewer on MSNBC the other day. Of course, I suspect if he tried it, he would need hospitalization. Trump ain’t one to threaten, or attack. You attack Donald Trump. Verbally or physically, he will respond in the same way—and he is fully capable of pushing your teeth to the back of you mouth, John. It’s not a good idea to physically threaten the president, John. You may already be in trouble. In any case, there isn’t anything that is bad that the Dumocrats have NOT blamed on Trump, and that will continue, as long as there are Dumocrats in this country. (Just common sense)

Exposing Murder for Hire

And the sale of human baby parts by Planned Parenthood. The first thing PP did was sue the investigator who exposed them and got a million dollar judgment against him handed down by a liberal judge. Then they filed criminal charges and he was charged with NINE felonies for exposing their “murder for hire” and “selling baby parts” after the murders. Six of them were thrown out, but it only takes one felony conviction to ruin a man’s life. And for WHAT? For exposing “Murder for Hire.” For “doing the Lord’s work.” What cops do, every day, if they just would. Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with “planned parenthood.” It has everything to do with murdering babies after those parents put out a “contract” on that child’s life because they can’t be bothered to raise the result of unprotected sex. And to make it worse, they collect even more $milions by selling the dead baby’s body parts. And they make a bundle killing those babies, as evidenced by their “director’s” bragging about her expensive car, paid for by her lofty salary for killing those babies. (Thomas More Society)

What Don't They Understand?

What don’t lawmakers who enact anti-gun laws that are aimed at BANNING gun ownership altogether understand about the Second Amendment to the Constitution? The Founders knew that if the government COULD ban the ownership and use of guns for the law-abiding, they could “run roughshod over them” with impunity, and they didn’t want that. They knew, from bitter experience, that this is true, and they didn’t want their government to be able to do that. So they made the Second Amendment, which says, unequivocally, that “no law” shall be made to “abridge” an American citizen’s right to be armed for self defense. The anti-gun fools have tried to complicate it, without success. It is very short, and to the point. And ANY attempt to “regulate” gun ownership or use IS an “abridgment.” Lawmakers should know these things, but many of them apparently don’t. They do everything they can to make the guns we do own useless to us. Like the “safe storage” laws that make guns impossible to get into action quickly enough to oppose the criminal, who already has his gun out and aimed. Like the “minimum magazine size” laws that get the law-abiding killed while trying to reload, since criminals have as large a magazine in their illegal guns as they wish. I could go on and on, but you get the point, while they don’t. (Just common sense)

"It Wuz Suicide!"

That’s what Dumocrats always call it when somebody who “put a hurt on them” winds up dead. Since before that Hillary confidant who was found in a park, dead with a gun in his hand while she rifled all his files in his office, to the guy who just died at his own home while he was waiting to get married. Then there was a man who was to testify to a Clinton crime whose death was called a suicide, who “shot himself in the head—TWICE.” There is a long list of such deaths, and most of them are called suicides, which is one of the hardest things to disprove, if a corrupt police politician says so. A Supreme Court Justice who was “a thorn in the side of Clintons” and other liberals is found dead with a pillow over his head at the home of a known Dumocrat, while the death is “certified” by a local Justice of the Peace who should never have been involved, while the Deputy Marshals took HOURS to respond. The whole thing was very sloppily handled, but nobody (who Dumocrats respect) is asking any questions, even if the scheme to get another liberal Justice to replace him was scotched, he’s still dead. (Flag and Cross)

Obama Takes Credit

Barack Obama was the worst president we’ve had in my memory—and my memory goes back a long way. Jimmy Carter and the “Misery Index” they applied to his economy was the second worst, but didn’t hold a candle to the horribleness of Obama’s “economy.” Obama, toward the end of his disastrous presidency had given up completely on ever being able to cause an improvement. He even told us so. He told us the millions of jobs his policies had LOST to overseas employers would never come back. That we would never again have a decent economy, and we’d better just “get used to it.” Then President Trump causes the greatest economy in recent history by REVERSING all of his policies, and he tries to take credit for the improvement. But America is smarter than that. They KNOW he had no effect on Trump’s superlative economy, because there’s more money in their paychecks. You can’t convince them you had anything to do with that when you TOLD them never to expect a good economy, any more. Obama is the most duplicitous man ever to sit in the Oval Office in recent days. The only people who believe a word he says are Dumocrats—and that’s a good thing for the country. (Just common sense)

Stop Appointing Gun-Grabbers!

The only way we’re ever going to be able to whip the anti-gun fools is to stop electing and appointing anti-gun fools to important offices. The more anti-gun fool senators and representatives we have, the more stupid anti-gun laws we will have to fight. Trump’s new Attorney General appointee has supported many anti-gun measures in the past, which indicates that he will support many more in the future. So who needs him? There is not a SINGLE anti-gun law now on the books that has done a SINGLE thing to stop, or even slow down “gun crime,” so what the hell GOOD are they? They ARE good for making the law-abiding easier victims for CRIMINALS, who are known to ignore laws they don’t like. One of the worst of those laws is the one mandating “gun-free zones.” Those are an “engraved invitation” to criminals and other miscreants to “come in and kill somebody.” That’s because the law-abiding don’t bring their guns, according to the law. So they will be defenseless in the face of your illegally-owned, and carried guns. Criminals SEEK OUT “gun-free zones” for this reason, because they don’t want to get shot, themselves. (Gun Owners)

Free--With YOUR Money

Dumocrats are all offering to give away a lot of money—other people’s money, not theirs, to buy votes. That’s how they win most elections—apart from ballot stuffing and other methods for stealing elections, that is. They TAKE ,oney from productive, working members of society to use in giving it to UNPRODUCTIVE, non-working members of society so they will give them the one thing Dumocrats hold dear—their votes. It’s how they stay in power. “Crazy Bernie” Sanders promises trillions of dollar’s worth of “free things” but has no idea how he will get the money to pay for it all. He doesn’t know, and he doesn’t give a damn. As one Dumocrat was heard to say, “There’s always more money.” And she was right. As long as you can “print money” with nothing valuable behind it, as politicians have been doing for years, thus diluting the value of the money already out there—a way to increase taxes without having to have the congress vote on it. They figure they can buy your votes with your money, and there’s no end to it. But there is. An end to the money, that is. When the world “tumbles” to the fact that most of the “money on paper” we offer has no value and stops accepting it. At that time, this government will crumble. (Washington Times)

The War That Wasn't

To hear the liberals (Dumocrats), we are “on the brink of war” with Iran because we killed that phony general that was no more than a state sponsored Islamic terrorist. Yes, Iran made a few feeble moves and sent in a few of their precious supply of missiles to an American base after WARNING us they were going to do it. They made sure there would be no American casualties to avoid “tripping the war wire.” They knew they had gone too far with that last murder of an American citizen and were on the brink of being annihilated for it. To save face, they made all kinds of threats about how terrible their response would be if we “attacked” them, knowing they couldn’t do anything without facing disaster themselves. Dumocrats are afraid of their threats, even though they couldn’t beat tiny Iraq after eight years of war. And they are right next door. We’re thousands of miles away. So how can they believe they have ANY chance of beating America with its thousand of missiles, some tipped with nukes, some not? Our thousands of jets, ships, and millions of troops? We probably wouldn’t waste a nuke on them, they’re too inconsequential. They couldn’t beat Iraq in eight years, while we “put them down” in A WEEK. They know that, if they waste one more missile on us and it kills an American, they’re DONE. And liberals (Dumocrats) are afraid of war with them? Gimme a break! A “war” with Iran would last maybe one day before Iran became a memory. (Just common sense)

Easier for Criminals

I look at each and every anti-gun law passed by the anti-gun fools, and I see that every one of them simply makes it easier for an armed criminal (who usually is using an illegally-obtained gun) to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey their laws, while the criminals do NOT. Think about it: “Background checks do nothing but help find a shooter IF he got his gun legally, and stood for one. Criminals, not so much. Making it harder for the law-abiding to get guns to use for self defense makes sure there will be fewer guns in the hands of the law-biding, making it easier for the law breakers to victimize them. “Safe storage” laws only make it more difficult for a potential victim to get his gun into action to defend against a criminal, whose gun is already in his hand, ready to shoot. Then there are the “limited magazine capacity” laws that help the criminal to kill a law-abiding person while he is reloading. Something the criminal doesn’t trouble himself with. And worst of all, the “gun-free zones,” that let the criminal know there probably not be anybody who obeys laws there with a gun, so he will be free to rob and/or kill them at will. I could go on and on, but you get the point. (Oregon 5 Bullet Law)

The "Ban Everything" Party

That’s the Dumocrat Party. They haven’t met anything they didn’t want to ban. They think, if they get elected, they have “unlimited power,” and they can ban everything they want, regardless of the law. Tops on their list to ban are guns. Just about every Dumocrat running for president right now has an “anti-gun plan.” Never mind such “plans” are prohibited by the Constitution, which is the BASIS for all our laws. They MUST conform to it, or they are not laws, at all. But that doesn’t seem to bother Dumocrats. Joe Biden says to gun manufacturers, “I’m coming for you!” For WHAT? Gun makers are engaged in a lawful enterprise. They’re not breaking any laws. So what are you going to “come after them” FOR, Joe? Bloomberg wants to ban everything. In NYC he banned plastic straws and huge soft drinks sold in convenience stores. Those are just the best known bans he promoted, outside the millions he has spent to “get rid of guns.” They all are stupid enough to believe that banning guns, no matter how illegal that is, will eliminate crime. They have to be aware that NONE of their highly vaunted anti-gun laws have done a single thing to stop “gun violence,” but they ignore that and go right on making more and more of their useless, unenforceable laws that do nothing except make it easier for the lawless to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey laws, even stupid ones, while the lawless do not. All their anti-gun laws do is get the law-abiding killed by disarming them. (Just common sense)

Obama's Worst Failure

Obama has failed at many things. But one of the worst failures in his administration is in Iraq. President Bush went after Islamic terrorist sanctuaries after they (accidentally) murdered 3,000 innocent people at the World Trade Center (I say accidentally because they had no idea they would be able to make those buildings collapse. The only people they planned to kill were the passengers on those planes). Against all advice, his forces went in and conquered the Saddam regime in just a couple of weeks, forcing Saddam to hide in a “rat hole” until he was found and hanged by his own people. Now, after he “cut and ran,” the Islamic terrorists are “retaking” what they lost in that very short war, since we are now gone. They can’t resurrect Saddam, but I’m sure they will shortly appoint somebody just as murderous to “rule in his place” as soon as they finish taking the entire country back over. All the people who die as they do can be laid directly at Obama’s door. (NBC News)

Surprise, Surprise!

Criminals MOSTLY don’t get their guns legally, even if they have not yet been caught committing a crime that prohibits that. Something I’ve been telling the anti-gun fools for years, even though they seem to be “tone deaf” to that. They think, in their abysmal ignorance, that all criminals get their guns legally, so all they have to do is make a law and, magically, the criminals will obey it. Well, The Department of Justice did a survey of criminals in prison, basically asking them how they got the guns they used in the crimes for which they are incarcerated. They had no reason to lie about it, and the results show that a massive MAJORITY of criminals got their guns ILLEGALLY. They either bought them from other criminals in a back alley somewhere, or STOLE them from friends, family embers, or even strangers. Will these results be instructive to the anti-gun fools? Not likely. They have their eye fixed firmly on the impossible goal of denying EVERYBODY of the right to be armed for self defense. Their minds are made up, so don’t confuse them with facts. (Truth About Guns)

I'm Baaack!

Didja miss me? Wedding over. My grandson’s an “instant father” since his new wife has two adorable little girls, one 7 the other 9, who were the flower girl and the ring bearer respectively. They were the hit of the wedding. It was an outdoor wedding on a cold day, but I survived. Now I’m back, and liberals hate that.

"Liberals Lost Their Minds!"

That could be boilerplate added to any headline that begins, “Trump did…” Because anything President Trump does infuriates liberals. It’s an object of “religious faith.” Trump can do no right. Even if what he does is something liberals have pined for all their lives. If Trump did it, they’d grit their teeth (if they have any) and “lose their minds.” They ought to trademark that phrase as part of the Dumocrat branding, because it is. It is undeniable that they hate Donald Trump more than anything. They have done NOTHING for the last three years since his election as president, except “investigate” him, hoping to find a “crime” they can pin on him. But because he’s one of the most honest men in this country, they have failed at every attempt, while spending millions of dollars of YOUR MONEY to do it. And they continue to spend even more in their frustration, to do it. They’re crying and laying on the floor stomping their feet like children having a tantrum. They would start a war if Trump ever said he absolutely did not want one. Whatever Trump wants, Dumocrats hate. And everything he accomplishes (which is plenty) they “lose their minds” and scream and cry like little children who didn’t get their way. There may have been worse examples of stupidity in politics before this, but I haven’t seen any—and I’ve been around a long time. (Just common sense)

Yes, It IS Unfair!

“CrazyBernie” Sanders says, “It’s not fair to say it’s all bad in Castro’s Cuba.” It damned sure IS, Bernie! Bernie is a dedicated socialist who sees nothing wrong with communism, which is just a “different form” of collectivism from socialism. The only difference is “cosmetic.” He objects to us calling it simple socialism. He wants us to call it “democratic socialism.” But I can’t see a difference between the two. It’s a matter of semantics. Both are based on TAKING from those who EARN, and GIVING to those who do NOT. And in their purest form, they require a dictator to FORCE people into accepting it because they KNOW that intelligent people know it is theft, and want no part of it. Bernie is the beneficiary of liberal school teachers and college professors pounding the idea that socialism is such a good thing into our impressionable youth when they’re too young to know any better. Of course, Dumocrats, who are known for accusing Trump of what THEY are doing, are even now touting a new accusation of “Russian help” for Trump in the upcoming 2020 election, even though they’re still insisting he KNEW the Russians were helping him in 2016—which he has NOT, because he DID not. They failed to prove anything before, so they’re predictably (for them) trying it again, since they have no imagination and keep trying the same old scams over and over gain. The truth is, no political system had murdered more people than has collectivism, in all its forms. And that’s just one thing that’s “bad” in Cuba. There’s no getting around that. (Just common sense)

"We're for Public Safety!"

That's what Dumocrats in Wisconsin say as they oppose a law that allows children to be taught about gun safety. The bill allows the state to cooperate with an organization to teach those classes, and you know that will involve that “evil old NRA.” of course, because there's none better than them to teach gun safety. And since the anti-gun fools think the NRA is “evil,” they want nothing to do with them. What a big, juicy, stinky load of brown stuff THAT is! These people aren't for gun safety, at all. They're for keeping all la-abiding people DEFENSELESS against the millions of ILLEGAL; guns already out there. They NEED those illegal guns in the hands of criminals because “gun control” is big business and certain people don't want to lose their jobs. They make too much money opposing legal guns while IGNORING all those illegal guns. (Gun Free Zone)

No Posts Tomorrow

NO POSTS TOMORROW: I’ll be out of town attending my grandson’s wedding after a 300 mile road trip, so there won’t be any new posts until Monday.

New York the Worst

New York State is the worst state in the union when it comes to laws that unnecessarily interfere with the rights of their citizens, and New York City is just as bad. NY City wanted to ban plastic straws and huge soft drinks, and a lot of other things. What the hell makes them think they have the RIGHT to ban things like that is a mystery. Maybe they’re taking “stupid pills” and believe they’re dictators. I don’t know. Now they want to make a law banning smoking IN PRIVATE HOMES! What business it is of politicians what people do in their private homes makes me wonder about their sanity. We live in a free country (so far), and they’re trying their best to change that by their actions. The Dumocrat Party is “the party of the ban.” They spend most of their time trying to ban this or that, not just in New York State or city, but everywhere they run things—which is just about every major (and many minor) cities because they’re so good at “fixing” elections in their favor. “Fixing” elections is what they’re good at. Other than giving away other people’s money to buy votes, that is. They’re not good at much else, especially not governing. (Just common sense)

"It's A Conspiracy Theory"

Liberals (Dumocrats) seem to leave many dead bodies in their wake when those people have information that will send any of them to prison, and the Clintons are the worst for this. The number of dead bodies piling up in their wake, who were about to testify to something criminal that Hillary or Bill did or otherwise gets in their way is impressive. And the complete lack of interest in investigating the whole idea that they might have instigated the deaths is also impressive. These deaths are usually very superficially “investigated,” and are dismissed as “accidental” or self-inflicted. Any suggestion of their involvement is always dismissed as a “conspiracy theory,” which usually stops any further investigation into the deaths. I remember one where it was officially listed as “suicide.” The dead man had “shot himself in the head, TWICE.” How he did that is a wonder.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia was a healthy man who stood in the way of many Dumocrat wishes, and he ended up dead, while visiting the home of a Clinton and Obama contributor, with a pillow over his face. It was “judged” to be “natural causes” by a local justice of the peace. Not even a real judge. And the investigation into his death went no further. Federal Marshals took hours to respond, and seemingly made no investigation of their own. Obama took it up and worked hard to get yet another liberal on the Court. Luckily, he failed. If this list only contained a few such cases, maybe it would be “only a conspiracy theory.” But the sheer NUMBER of dead bodies under suspicious circumstances benefiting the Clintons or other Dumocrats DEMANDS a thorough investigation. Why has none ever been done? That’s FACT, not “conspiracy theory.” (Three Percenter Nation)

Gun Control's A Fantasy

A fantasy supported by the fallacy that all you have to do is make a law against something and criminals, who obey NO laws, will magically OBEY this one. And another fallacy that it is even POSSIBLE to eliminate guns from the world. You cannot. It’s like putting toothpaste back in the tube. It can’t be done. There are billions of guns in existence, both legal and ILLEGAL, and millions of them are ILLEGAL. There is NO WAY a person can defend him/herself against one of those millions of illegal guns in the hands of criminals and other miscreants, without having his OWN gun. But the anti-gun fools will not hear of that. They think that, if the law-abiding are able to have guns, they will “go wild” and start shooting each other over trifles, such as a fender-bender. That completely discounts the fact that holders of illegal guns are doing that, right now. Gang members, who are too young to legally buy a gun, are shooting each other over “turf.” You can get killed for being in the wrong place. Gun control cannot be obtained by doing away with only legal guns. But you can’t convince the anti-gun fools of that. They don’t have the INTELLIGENCE to understand it. (Liberty Park Press)

"Mile Will Get It Done!"

Yes, Mike Bloomberg will probably get it done. But that’s what worries me. The things Mike wants to get done will hurt the country to no end. His ideas on gun control are patently unconstitutional and, to institute them would be a “crime.” Yet he promises to do so, as he has been trying for a long time. He’s gullible enough to believe he can “reduce gun crime” by making guns harder for law-abiding to get, while ignoring the millions of ILLEGAL guns, already out there in the hands of law-breakers. He has promised $50 million to “Everytown for Gun Safety,” which shows how gullible he can be, I can’t say Mike is a socialist, but he espouses, as do all the Dumocrats, many socialistic principles—and that scares me a lot. He actually believes in the con of global warming/climate change against all odds. That means he will work hard to inhibit everything that he thinks might contribute to it. I don’t know if he is on the “eliminate the coal industry” bandwagon, but that is a favorite position of the “climate change fool” people, and he will sponsor many tax increases “to fight climate change.” He also believes in the “health care swindle” where the government, which can’t do anything right, takes over the health care of the nation. Yes, “Mike Will Get It Done,” and that’s not a good thing because what he wants to get done is the opposite of what is good for this country—as is true of all Dumocrats. (Just common sense)

Where'd He Get the Money?

Barack Obama was an unknown small-time politician with one term in Congress when he suddenly ran for president, and won. He didn’t have a lot of money, as do many candidates. But after eight years as president, screwing up thing after thing, and nearly destroying this country, he is now buying a $11.75 million dollar “estate.” The presidency only pays about $100,000.00 a year, with a matching fund for “expenses.” There is NO WAY he could have legally come by that much money as president. So I can only conclude that he came by it dishonestly, using his position as president to skim money “off the top.” Somebody needs to investigate that, but probably will not. Other politicians know that if they do, they will make it impossible for them to gain a lot of illicit money while in elected office, and they don’t want that. Just as they will probably never pass a law to make it impossible for a politician to go into the lobbying business after leaving office because they want to keep that possibility for themselves. There’s enough money in politics to make “skimming” possible, and that’s not going to change. Dumocrat candidates are amassing multi-million dollar “war chests” and then dropping out. What happens to that money? Who keeps track of that? (Just common sense)

Ain't Never Gonna Happen!

They’re wondering if, one day, the anti gun fools are going to realize how stupid they are, and “go away.” It ain’t gonna happen, people! Stupid people are too stupid to realize how stupid they are. They tend to think they are the smartest people in the room, when they’re not. Each and every law or regulation made by them makes it easier on the “bad guys” to victimize the law-abiding when they predictably OBEY their laws, even knowing how stupid they are. “Gun-free zones,” for instance. Owners of illegal guns have no problem bringing their guns into them because they are CRIMINALS. Criminals do not obey laws. They know the likelihood of a law-abiding person being armed there is small, so such zones are an “engraved invitation” for them to come in and do their dirty work. Criminals freely tell us they SEEK OUT such zones, for that reason. Background checks only make it possible to find a shooter AFTER he has killed people, IF he used a legally-purchased gun—which most “gun crime” people do not. “Safe Storage Laws only make it harder for legal gun owners to get their guns into action when threatened by an ILLEGAL gun owner, whose gun is already out and pointed at them. Most of their other laws are designed only to make it difficult for the law-abiding to use the guns they have a constitutional right to own to get them in action quickly enough. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Gun laws are stupid. (Joe Huffman)

Bloomberg Is Right

I never thought I’d ever be defending former NY Mayor Bloomberg, but when you’re right, you’re right. They called him a racist when he said that most gun crime is committed by minorities. He might be a racist, but not for this opinion. That’s not just his opinion, it is fact. And it is NOT racist to recognize fact, no matter how much the anti-gun fools think it is. What we’re talking about here is the number of “gun crimes” that occur in “minority areas.” And the number IS higher than that happening in non-minority areas. What’s the reason for that? Many reasons, actually, chief among them is that is where most “street gangs” operate, and they regularly shoot each other and others as they go about selling drugs and committing other rimes. That they use guns in their efforts to victimize people is a well-known fact, and you can’t change that by denying it, or calling somebody who recognizes it a racist. They’ll probably call me a racist for this item, but that doesn’t worry me. I’ve been called a racist before, because I don’t let race get in the way of reporting truth. I am NOT saying ALL minorities commit gun crime. I AM recognizing the truth of the fact that a high degree of gun crime occurs IN “minority areas.” I don’t agree with much of Bloomberg’s policies, but in this case, he is right, even if some fools call him a racist for pointing it out. (NCFR)

Tag Team On Impeachment

“Pencil Neck” Adam Schiff failedmanaged to impeach President Trump with NO EVIDENCE of any wrongdoing, then he passing the baton to Jerry Nadler to keep the incessant “investigation” going, in spite of NO EVIDENCE of wrongdoing by the president being found, after almost THREE YEARS of “searching for a crime” he MUST have committed. The voters are getting very tired of this incessant din of baseless claims that they have “solid evidence” of his wrongdoing, which they do not have. Evidence they never share with us because there ISN’T ANY. I got tired of it a long time ago because I knew it was a “dog and pony show” like the “show trials” they once held in the Soviet Union to pretend their political enemies must be guilty of SOMETHING. The “dirty little secret” is, there’s NOTHING even approaching a crime. After searching for one tor THREE YEARS, you’d think they’d realize the “search” is futile, and give up. But not the Dumocrats. They thought if they can keep this impeachment scam going until the 2020 election, they can cause Trump to lose. But they’re wrong. People are so tired of it, they will vote Trump back in as president, and then maybe try and change the law to allow him a third term. That would really cause a run on clean underwear for liberal Dumocrats! Update: The senate acquitted Trump, which caused Nancy Peelosi to literally go insane. She’s now claiming he “wasn’t acquitted,” because they didn’t “follow her orders.” (Just common sense)

"Save 32,000 Lives!"

The anti-gun fools keep quoting that phony figure of 32,000 deaths a year from gun violence, even long after it has been debunked, due to the knowledge that that figure INCLUDES not only “gun crime” deaths, but also “righteous shootings” by police and people using their guns for self defense, as well as gun suicides. They say that eliminating all guns will “save that many lives every year.” That’s a foolish pipe dream. Those wishing to commit suicide or commit crimes using guns will find other ways to accomplish their aims. That was recently proven conclusively by the sudden rise in KNIFE crime in the UK after they pretty much banned all guns that are legally owned, there. Those who want to kill will kill, even if they have to use a club. Additionally, there is NO WAY to COMPLETELY ban ALL GUNS. Those millions of ILLEGAL guns already in existence proves that. it’s actually EASIER to get a gun ILLEGALLY than legally these days, with all the laws and regulations in existence to make it as hard as possible to accomplish. (GunMart)

Forced Birth Control

I thought we didn’t like the communist Chinese tendency to limit families to a certain number of children as a violation of human rights. So now somebody (must be a Dumocrat) sponsored a bill in the Alabama Legislature to FORCE men to get a vasectomy, at his own expense, within one month of his fiftieth birthday or after the birth of his third child, whichever comes first. Ted Cruz objected, and was criticized by the pro-abortion crowd. They figure—and rightly so-- that would be “abortion by proxy.” And that’s what they want. But human rights do not allow the government to DICTATE how many children we can have. Alabama passed a bill into law last year, prohibiting abortions (murder of babies) and this is one way of “getting around” that law. Those who like to murder babies before they even get born apparently don’t like being stymied, it seems. The very BASIC human right is the right to LIFE. And abortion denies that infant that right—not at that infant’s wish—but at the wish of the parents, who just don’t want to be bothered to raise the result of their unprotected sex and would murder it. Abortion IS murder. NO matter how they “sugar-coat it.” they can object to that characterization of their crimes all they want, but abortion is MURDER! And the people who practice it are MURDERERS! (The Blaze)

Felon Cops?

When gunfire broke out in Santa Clarita, California, the response time for the cops was 16 seconds. How is that possible, you may ask. Well. Cops are people, too, and several off-duty cops were dropping their children off at the school when the gunfire started. They rushed in and saved some lives by giving instant First Aid to victims. I don’t know if one of them was the “armed civilian” who put a stop to the shooter’s day, but they are heroes, even if they did not get a chance to confront the shooter. But it they had done this in Connecticut, they’d have been felons and could possibly be sent to prison for “being on school grounds armed.” Their law applies equally to simple citizens, AND cops. It’s an idiot way to make a law, but that’s the way their law is written. Believe it or not, California’s similar law does NOT apply to cops, but I’m sure some simple-minded lawmaker will soon introduce a bill to change all that. Anti-gun laws are DESIGNED to only apply to the law-abiding, because lawbreakers just IGNORE them. The way the Connecticut law is written illustrates graphically the STUPIDITY of anti-gun lawmakers in liberal Connecticut. They still think the way to self defense is to make yourself DEFENSELESS against the law-breakers. (Bearing Arms)

Gun Rights ARE Inalienable!

Anti-gun fools are now saying that “gun rights are not inalienable.” Which is an out-and-our LIE. There is no right in the Constitution that is more inalienable. The Second Amendment is simple and uncomplicated, although anti-gun fools have tried and tried to complicate it by insisting that gun rights are limited to members of an “organized militia,” something that did not even EXIST at the time the Constitution was written. A “militia” then was considered to be all the people, who could be called up at any time to defend our nation, and they wanted them to bring their own guns, because the government then was not as “flush with money” as it is today. They recognized the right to self defense, and that gun ownership and use was vital to self defense, so the Second Amendment told us that “no law” could be made to infringe on that right. It’s that simple, and inalienable. That amendment does not “grant” us that right, it merely recognizes and guarantees that the government can never infringe on that right, though politicians have tried every way they can to do just that, ever since. Before the ink was even dry on the Constitution. If the Second Amendment is ever repealed, you can look for this country to be a dictatorship soon after. (Just common sense)

False Accusations

This bimbo falsely accused multiple men of raping her, even though I can’t see why ANY man would want to have sex with her, rape, or consensual. This lump of lard should ask herself, “Who would WANT to rape her? Personally, I’d rather have sex with a fence post. This bimbo is the very reason why we should NEVER “believe the woman” without any kind of proof. Especially after years of staying quiet. Yes, there are usually not eye-witnesses to rape, but a “rape kit” is very good at giving proof of rape, even if the rapist used contraceptives. This woman obviously just wants a big payday, and figures false accusations of rape as the way do it, with the “believe the woman” campaign out there promoting believing ALL rape claims without proof. The fact is, you CAN’T “believe the woman” without proof, because there are some women out there who will take advantage of it. And this is one of them. There have even been MEN who have claimed rape. Some with proof, and some without. I’m a man, and if I were raped, I’d be sure and get something to use as proof, even if it’s only skin scrapings from under my fingernails. Of course, there is the question, “Who would rape this old man?” (Independent Minute)

"Shoulda Coulda Woulda"

This would be funny if it weren’t so serious. The mother of a gunman who tried to rob a store and got shot to death for his trouble, bemoans the fact that the store he tried to rob with his gun was not a “gun-free zone,” so there wouldn’t be a chance for the store clerk to defend himself. She wants tom make it easier for her criminal son to kill them. These parents are really angry that the intended victim was allowed to be armed, completely forgetting, of course, that their son WAS also armed, illegally. Mom said, “If there was to be a death, it was not the place of an employee at Pizza Hut. It was the place of the police.” Oh, yeah—when they finally arrived, long after a pizza place employee had been shot and killed by their son! Some people have strange ways of thinking. To bemoan someone being able to legally carry a gun for self defense because he killed a robber who was using a gun illegally is really stupid. But they’re too damned stupid to know that. It’s too bad for the robber that one of his intended victims was armed, and could defend himself. Maybe Mom should have taught her son better. Those parents should be slapped down for even thinking that way. People have a right to defend themselves against people like her son, who just ignore laws they don’t like. You point a gun at someone, you take your chances. He lost. (Bearing Arms)

"Not for Self Defense"

Some fools are telling us a “pocket pistol” is not for self defense because it is difficult to hit a distant target with one of them. But that’s not a good reason to exclude them from your arsenal. Yes, they are not the BEST gun for self defense, but they are a good “back up” gun that can be used when you can’t get to your number one gun, and you recognize their limitations. They are DESIGNED for close-up use, and as a “last chance” measure. And if loaded with magnum ammo, can be quite devastating to an attacker who did not expect them to be there. Given a choice between a larger caliber gun and one of those “pocket pistols” for “first grab” use, I would choose the larger caliber every time. But there are often times when you lose track of your number one gun and are still under attack. And faced with the possibility of being murdered while I don’t have my regular gun handy, I’ll take it. You’d be surprised how effective this kind of gun can be when fired into the eye of an attacker who has his hands around your throat. (The Gun Feed)

Sliding Into Collectivism

I fear we’re doing just that. The exact same thing that destroyed the Russians when communism began to take over there, and created the Soviet Union, which caused the deaths of millions, the ruination of just as many, and finally the collapse of collectivism in the Soviet Union after 75 years of oppression. The proponents of all forms of collectivism extol the “good things” collectivism brings—such as “free things” the government gives away after taking them from those who are gullible enough to EARN their own way. The fact is, collectivism (and its more familiar term, socialism), just does not work in the long run. It may SEEM to work for a while, as the government loots the producers of new wealth for the benefit of the moochers of society, who simply wish to live at the expense of others. That is the basic promise made by the proponents of socialism—that they CAN live at the expense of others. What they don’t tell you is that eventually those producers begin to realize they are being looted and stop earning. Leaving little to be looted—and that causes the failure of socialism because it DEPENDS on being able to loot those people to support their flawed system. I see the same thing happening here that eventually took over in Russia. The false idea that those who do not earn their own way are ENTITLED to that earned by those who do. And that makes me glad I am as old as I am, so I won’t have to live under such a system. What pains me is that my descendants will have to. It’s a damned shame so many fools buy that BS, leading to their own downfall. (Just common sense)

Hillary's Death List

It's strange how many people HIllary doesn't like or who are about to testify against her or Bill end up dead. I’ve written many times about the long list of people who have ended up dead because they could PROVE her crimes, and the whole thing was called a “conspiracy theory.” And that as supposed to blunt the facts those deaths represented. One case in particular stood out, which was ruled as “suicide” by a man who shot himself in the head—TWICE. Now they’re pulled yet another possible anti-Hillary testifier out of a river, dead. Add that to her “death list.” Of course, nobody’s going to really investigate her “death list” and her possible connection too many suspicious murders, because “the fix is in.” Not just locally where the murders are committed, but nationally. Probably the only reason I haven’t been murdered is that she doesn’t really regard me as a real threat, and she only murders those who are. I’d better be careful I don’t join that group. (Three Percent Nation)

Following the Russians

The Soviet Union was well known to use “mental illness” as an excuse to imprison people whose views and actions they didn't like. Now New York State is doing the same, to “confiscate” (steal) the guns of people they SAY (without any kind of proof) are “mentally unbalanced. It happened to retired 70-year-old Viet Nam veteran Don Hall when deputies showed up with an order to take his guns due to mental illness. He told them there must be a mistake, that he had never had any trouble with mental issues. The deputies fell back on that old excuse, “We're just doing our jobs.” as they took all his guns. Turns out it WAS a mistake, that it was another Don Hall who had mental issues, but he had the “burden of proof,” and had to go to court, with all the attendant costs and waste of time, to prove it. Nobody is sure which New York law is responsible. They have such a mish-mash of anti-gun laws there, it's hard to tell. Liberal New York is usually the first place such laws appear, so you can probably expect to hear more about such actions across the country. (Keep and Bear)